What I’m asking specifically is, are hippies better off than they were in the 60s because their lifestyle isn’t as popular? Think about it, in 1965 & ‘66, Haight-Ashbury was a hippie utopia. There was free food provided to those who needed it, free clothing, free medicine and free places to sleep. Then a lot of publicity generated by the public outcry against the hippies caused a huge rush of people crowding into the Haight in the summer of ‘67. They came from all over the country for a piece of the action. Suddenly the system was overwhelmed and there weren’t enough free services to go around. People ended up begging for spare change and sleeping in the streets, hungry and sick. Many who came weren’t really into the hippie philosophy and just wanted to get in on the free sex and drugs. Some of the original hippies left, disgusted with the way things had fallen apart. At the end of summer people cleared out, but some of those who stayed behind were junkies and bums while others were just a drain on the system, thus the Haight could never be the way it was again. Real hippies don’t care if being a hippie is trendy, they choose it because it suits them, no matter if it doesn’t suit most people. But are hippies better off if they’re not trendy? Apparently the hippie lifestyle can only support so many people. Is it best if only a few participate because it means each person gets more? BTW, no I wasn’t there at the time, I was 13 and living in Massachusetts, and San Francisco might as well have been on the dark side of the moon, though some kids my age ran away and went there. But from everyone and every source I’ve ever heard from this is the way it was in the Haight.